Initial commit of ebook 78996 filesHEADmain

1 files changed, 1625 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/78996-0.txt b/78996-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b19804c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78996-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1625 @@
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78996 ***
+
+
+
+
+                        LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. 491
+                      Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius
+
+                        Psychology for Beginners
+
+                      Hereward Carrington, Ph. D.
+
+   Author of “The Problems of Psychical Research,” “Modern Psychical
+                 Phenomena,” “The Coming Science,” etc.
+
+                 HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY GIRARD, KANSAS
+
+
+
+
+                            Copyright, 1924,
+                        Haldeman-Julius Company
+
+
+                PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
+
+
+
+PSYCHOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS
+
+
+The word “Psychology” originally meant the study of the _soul_. The
+human soul was thought to be a sort of entity, exhibiting qualities
+or “faculties,” which became manifest to us as various psychological
+manifestations. The last century saw the gradual development of a
+“psychology without a soul”--a psychology based upon the study of
+_mind_, as manifested in human beings; it therefore became the study of
+consciousness.
+
+Until relatively recently, the word psychology meant only this.
+Within the past few years, however, the scope of this science has
+been enormously increased. When we speak of Psychology, we no longer
+mean, merely, the adult, human, normal consciousness. We must
+define now our terms more accurately and in greater detail. We have
+psycholog_ies_--just as we no longer have “insanity,” but insanit_ies_.
+The science has been enlarged. We know _animal psychology_--which deals
+with the mind of lower animals--extending all the way down the scale to
+the simplest organisms. We have _Educational psychology_, which deals
+with the psychology of childhood, and the best methods of training
+the young mind and developing it. We have _individual psychology_,
+dealing with the relationship of the individual to his environment,
+and going into the details of his own mental make-up. We have _social
+psychology_, which deals with the instincts and desires of man,
+as related to the society in which he dwells. We have _abnormal
+psychology_, dealing with the varied derangements, abnormalities and
+defects of the human mind. We have _dream psychology_, especially
+studied by psycho-analysis. We also have the _psychology of the crowd_,
+so different from the individual in the crowd. We have the _psychology
+of the subconscious mind_--that vast realm which was practically a
+closed book to the psychologists of the last century. We have _Oriental
+psychology_, which is entirely different from our own, in many
+respects. We have _supernormal psychology_, which deals with certain
+alleged “psychical” phenomena, and endeavors to explain them along
+psychological lines. We have psychology of religion, history, politics,
+etc.
+
+It will be necessary to devote a brief space to all these sections,
+in order that a bird’s-eye view of the whole subject may be obtained.
+First of all, however, a few words as to the general methods and scope
+of psychology.
+
+The older psychology was based almost entirely upon
+“Introspection”--that is to say, subjective analysis of the mind
+and its activities. A great deal of valuable material was secured
+in this manner. Later on, came “experimental psychology”--the “new
+psychology,” as it was called for some time--based upon accurate
+laboratory measurements, by means of suitable instruments of precision.
+This dealt very largely with the various reactions of the subject
+experimented upon. Still more recently, the so-called “Behavioristic”
+psychology,--which studies the behavior of the subject, and contends
+that the inner, mental activities can be interpreted in this manner. A
+brief summary of the behavioristic psychology will be given later on.
+
+Whatever theory we may hold as to the relation of brain and mind, it is
+certain that the two are in some intimate way related to one another.
+Whether the activities of the brain actually _cause_ or _produce_
+consciousness; or _vice versa_; or whether these two are but opposite
+sides of the same shield--but differing aspects of reality, (just as a
+decayed tooth and the pain caused by it are differing aspects of the
+same thing) cannot be decided; it is a metaphysical problem, which
+need not be discussed now, since it falls more properly under the
+province of philosophy than of psychology. For all practical purposes,
+we may take it for granted that brain and mind are in some unknown
+and intimate way connected, and that thought and the operations of
+consciousness are coincidental with the activities of the brain.
+
+The human brain is a delicate and beautiful structure, of great
+complexity. The older “physiological psychology” really amounted to
+little more than physiology, since it dealt with mind largely in terms
+of brain. Nowadays, psychology is recognized as a separate science, and
+we can discuss its problems in purely mental terms or language, without
+referring to the brain.
+
+In discussing cases of multiple personality, for example, we can now
+do so without using physiological terms, which was not the case until
+a few years ago. In other words, we now recognize that the psychic
+sphere is a legitimate one of its own; and, although it is in some
+manner related to the brain-changes, this fact is not taken into
+account; the two worlds are regarded as distinct and separate, for all
+practical purposes,--although perhaps united in some metaphysical sense
+ultimately. Details as to the general anatomy of the brain can be found
+in any physiology, wherein the various motor and sensory centers are
+located, the higher association centers, etc. Dr. Bastian’s work, “The
+Brain as an Organ of Mind,” is a good book,--although several years
+old. But there is a wealth of material upon this subject,--to which we
+have no space to do more than refer in the present booklet.
+
+The human mind is just as complex as the human brain. It reasons,
+wills, feels, associates, remembers, perceives time and space, forms
+concepts, forms habits, imagines, gives its attention, concentrates,
+discriminates, compares, induces, deduces, thinks abstractly, is
+subject to illusions, hallucinations, insanities, as well as flights
+of genius, directs the flow of thought, experiences emotions, feels
+sensations, experiences the constant feeling of “self” as a background,
+etc., etc. And every mind in the whole world is different, both in
+its structure and its mode of action! No two people think and feel
+_exactly_ alike. Each person is a world unto himself. He himself
+represents an invisible entity, somehow tucked away in that little dark
+chamber which we call the skull, and within _that_ his whole individual
+universe is contained.
+
+Let us now endeavor to dissect this complex mental organism, and see
+how it “works.” We shall try to discover the nature and structure of
+the human mind, and ascertain how it operates. We shall devote a brief
+chapter to each of its varied activities, and then endeavor to weld
+together our findings, so as to enable us to understand the real nature
+of the Self.
+
+First, however, a few words as to the various “Psychologies.”
+
+
+ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+This is occupying a prominent place in modern psychological literature.
+There is a “Journal of Abnormal Psychology,” devoted especially to its
+problems. A variety of fascinating questions fall under this heading,
+a few of which I have briefly touched upon in the section dealing with
+“The Structure of the Mind.” Space prevents further treatment here.
+The reader may consult such a book as Dr. Isador H. Coriat’s “Abnormal
+Psychology” for further particulars.
+
+
+ANIMAL PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+A vast literature exists upon this subject also. Darwin’s “Expression
+of the Emotions” is, of course, classical. Lindsay’s “Mind in the Lower
+Animals” (2 vols.), and Mills’s “Animal Intelligence” are useful books.
+Some original and ingenious speculations are contained in Ouspensky’s
+“Tertium Organum.” A most interesting work, from a practical point
+of view (that of a trapper and hunter) is “How Animals Talk,” by
+William J. Long. A study of the so-called “talking animals” is “Lola:
+a Contribution to the Thought and Speech of Animals.” Chapters on the
+marvellous horses of Elberfeld are contained in Maeterlinck’s “Our
+Unknown Guest,” and in my own “Modern Psychical Phenomena.”
+
+The question of _Instinct_ in animals has also received extensive
+treatment. C. Lloyd Morgan’s works are classical in this respect:
+“Habit and Instinct,” “Instinct and Experience,” etc. See also
+Chadbourne’s “Instinct in Animals and Men,” and McDougall’s treatment
+of the subject in his “Social Psychology,” in his “Psychology,” and
+a number of articles on this subject in the “Journal of Abnormal
+Psychology,” and similar periodicals.
+
+
+PSYCHOLOGY OF POLITICS, HISTORY, ETC.
+
+This branch of our subject deals with such questions as the mental life
+of nations, religion and the state, national psychology, etc. A useful
+book in this connection is J. A. Dewe’s “Psychology of Politics and
+History.”
+
+
+RELIGIOUS PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+A voluminous literature also exists upon this subject. Attacks upon
+religion are to be found in such books as Leuba’s “Belief in God and
+Immortality,” and Theodore Schroeder’s writings, which endeavor to
+trace all religion to sex. On the other hand, are to be found such
+books as Barrow’s “The Validity of the Religious Experience,” and
+William James’ “Varieties of Religious Experience.” An extensive
+study of Mysticism is Poulain’s “The Graces of Interior Prayer.”
+The literature on this subject is so vast, however, that it would be
+impossible even to indicate the sources of reference.
+
+
+EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+The mind of the pupil, the aims of the teacher, methods of instruction,
+school work, etc., form the subject-matter of this branch of knowledge.
+A useful book in this connection is Hugo Munsterberg’s “Psychology and
+the Teacher.”
+
+
+BUSINESS PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+Of late years, much has been written concerning this topic. Many
+works upon it have been issued, among which one might mention Link’s
+“Employment Psychology,” and Atkinson’s “Psychology of Salesmanship.”
+
+
+SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+The most noteworthy book dealing with this question is undoubtedly
+William McDougall’s “Social Psychology.” Since the publication of this
+book, a number of others have been issued, but the student would do
+well to begin with this one. Much useful material is also to be found
+in H. G. Wells’ “Outline of History.”
+
+
+INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+This is covered by any popular book, such as the present one.
+
+
+CROWD PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+An individual in a crowd is usually lost, more or less--mentally no
+less than physically. If the crowd is carried away by some emotion or
+intense excitement, so is the individual in it. Crowd psychology is
+generally primitive; emotions overrule intellect. An interesting work
+upon this subject is G. LeBon’s “Psychology of the Crowd.” See also
+McDougall’s “The Group Mind,” and Trotter’s “Instincts of the Herd in
+Peace and War.”
+
+
+DREAM PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+This is covered by such books as Freud’s “Dream Psychology,” Walsh’s
+“Psychology of Dreams,” Coriat’s “The Meaning of Dreams,” etc. See also
+the little book upon “Dreams” in the present series, and the references
+therein given.
+
+
+ORIENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+This is extensive, in one sense, sparse in another. Orientals have
+written much about themselves, but largely concerning their mystical
+states. Rhys Davids’s “Buddhist Psychology” is perhaps a good summary
+of the Hindu Teachings (a section of them). The various Sacred Books of
+the East give, perhaps, as good a clue to their inner life as any.
+
+
+SUPERNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY.
+
+This, naturally, falls within the province of Psychical Research (See
+the volumes upon this topic in the present series). F. W. H. Myers’
+“Human Personality” is a classic; an excellent and sane book is Prof.
+Th. Flournoy’s “Spiritism and Psychology,” translated by the present
+writer.
+
+
+PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SUBCONSCIOUS.
+
+Here, again, a voluminous literature exists, dealing with the various
+problems presented. Morton Prince’s “The Unconscious,” and Joseph
+Jastrow’s “The Subconscious,” are valuable books. A. T. Schofield’s
+book, “The Unconscious Mind,” may also be consulted. How new this
+idea of the subconscious mind is may be seen from the fact that it
+was hardly mentioned in James’ “Psychology.” The difference between
+unconscious and subconscious consists in this: that whereas the
+former is thought to represent a sort of “unconscious cerebration”
+(Carpenter), without definite thought, the subconscious mind is
+believed to carry-on a lively mentation of its own; there is an
+unconscious consciousness, so to say. This idea has been disputed by
+some authorities, but there is a mass of evidence in its favor. Indeed,
+investigations of the subconscious mind have taken precedence over
+those into the conscious mental processes, of late years. The mass of
+published material dealing with the psychology of the subconscious is
+now enormous.
+
+
+BEHAVIORISM.
+
+This is a relatively new school in psychology, and has been the subject
+for much controversy. Its main contention is that behavior is the key
+to a man’s real, inner being, and that, from this, his total self can
+be gauged. His instinctive and emotional equipment, his habits, his
+activities, his social adaptability, his recreation and sports, his
+sexual life, his reactions to conventional standards, his personal bias
+and peculiarities, etc.--these are all factors in the determination
+of his inner mental life. In other words; as a man behaves--so is he!
+Behavioristic psychology, however, totally fails to disclose to us
+the essence of self and personality--what it _is_. Those who may be
+interested in pursuing this line of reading further may consult Dr.
+John B. Watson’s “Psychology: from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist.”
+
+
+THE SENSES.
+
+The five generally recognized senses are: sight, hearing, taste, touch
+and smell. These depend upon certain sense-organs, (the eye, ear,
+etc.), and also upon specific sense-centers in the brain. The structure
+and physiology of these organs can be found in any good text book
+on the subject. Suffice it to say that, in the case of the eye, for
+example, certain incoming ether vibrations are converted, by the rods
+and cones in the retina of the eye (by a wholly mysterious process)
+into nerve-currents, which are transmitted to the sight-centers in the
+brain, wherein the sensation of sight occurs. The ear converts sound
+waves into nerve-currents, which we then perceive as sound, etc. Touch
+depends upon nerve-currents from the periphery of the body. Smell and
+taste are closely related; in fact, there are only four primary tastes
+which are directly conveyed by the nerves of the tongue. These are
+sweet, salt, sour and bitter. All our other “tastes” are dependent
+upon the sense of smell. That is why, when we have a “cold,” and cannot
+smell anything, food seems to have no taste. The primary tastes are
+obtained through the “taste buds” in the tongue. Smell is a sense about
+which relatively little is known.
+
+In addition of these sensations, arising from the sense organs, there
+are also other senses, such as the muscular sense, the temperature
+sense, etc. To what extent these may be properly classed as separate
+senses has been disputed. The so-called “sixth sense” is theoretically
+a sort of “second sight,” of supernormal origin, which orthodox
+psychology does not at present recognize.
+
+The sensation of motion should perhaps be mentioned in this place. Such
+sensations are of two kinds: (1) sensations of objects moving over our
+sensory surfaces; and (2) sensations of our whole person’s translation
+through space.
+
+The former of these has been much studied, though little definite can
+be said regarding it here. Curiously, while the sensation of a moving
+object can be accurately determined, it is most difficult to locate
+a number of stationary objects on the skin (if the eyes are closed).
+Thus, if one places the finger-tips against the chest, one cannot tell
+how many fingers are touching (after the first three). Certain areas
+of the skin are also quite insensitive; anaesthetic zones of patches
+sometimes existing,--especially in hysterical subjects, and these can
+be pricked without involving any reaction. These figure largely in the
+“witchcraft trials,” of the middle ages, for it was held that the
+witch was insensible to pain wherever the Devil had touched her. Such
+spots were, therefore, searched for with long needles!
+
+As to the sensation of movement through space, we often experience
+this at night, in our so-called “flying dreams.” (See my little book
+in this series on “Dreams.”) The Hindus contend, however, that this
+is an actual possibility; that the physical body can really be lifted
+or “levitated,” by means of proper breathing exercises, etc. I have
+discussed this question, briefly, in my volume in this series devoted
+to “Yoga Philosophy.”
+
+
+SENSATION.
+
+Sensation depends upon certain nerve-currents, which affect the brain,
+but are usually localized or “felt” in a particular spot or area of
+the body. If a finger is burnt, for example, the pain is apparently
+felt _in_ the _finger_; nevertheless the actual sensation takes place
+_in_ the _brain_, and if the sensory (or afferent) nerves were cut, no
+pain would be experienced. Normally, we react to a stimulus of this
+kind by immediately withdrawing the hand; this is due to the motor (or
+efferent) nerve-currents, which are sent out, commanding the muscles
+to move the hand and arm in question. A definite “reaction” has then
+taken place. Reactions of this sort are constantly going on, but most
+of them never rise into consciousness. Only when the sensation is
+powerful enough to rise above the so-called “threshold” does it rise
+into consciousness, and the reaction to the given stimulus is then
+consciously directed.
+
+The outer world acts upon the periphery (surface) of the body, giving
+rise to all sorts of sensations. Again, various internal organs,
+if they are not functioning normally, will give rise to internal
+sensations. All such sensations are conveyed by sensory nerves; and,
+when these flow from any specific sense-organ, only the characteristic
+sense impression is thereby conveyed. Thus, the duty of the optic nerve
+is to convey sensations of sight; if the eye be struck violently, the
+optic nerve, in such case, does not transmit pain--only sight--and we
+“see stars” instead. This phenomenon is due to the sudden and violent
+transmission of a nerve current flowing along these nerve-tracts.
+Similarly with all the other senses.
+
+This fact has given rise to the theory of “specific nervous
+energies,”--to the theory, that is, that each sensory nerve conveys the
+particular sort of current appropriate to it, and no other. Certain
+internal organs, however, appear to have no sensation. For example, the
+brain can be cut up, without any sensation on the part of the subject.
+(Of course, before reaching the brain, pain would be experienced on the
+surface of the head, in the skull, etc.)
+
+Sensations are our most primitive mental constituents. They are
+distinguished from Perceptions by the fact that the latter are more
+complex; they are sensations, _plus_ ideas about the sensation; hence
+“pure sensations” are impossible to us after the first few days of life.
+
+Sensations differ greatly in the degree of their intensity; a
+feeble sensation, however, if continued, will ultimately rise into
+consciousness. On the other hand, sensations which intruded into
+consciousness at first may sink below its threshold after a time, and
+are no longer noticed. Thus, a workman may sleep in a boiler-factory;
+soldiers have learned to sleep amidst the constant booming of cannon,
+etc. Certain sensations also give rise to a sort of reverse of
+themselves. Thus, if one gazes at a red spot for a time, and then looks
+at the white ceiling, a _green_ spot will be seen to form there. This
+is a so-called “after image,” and is due to fatigue. This can readily
+be demonstrated in the case of vision.
+
+
+INSTINCT.
+
+William James defines Instinct as “the faculty of acting in such a way
+as to produce certain ends, without foresight of the ends, and without
+previous education in the performance.” Of late years, much controversy
+has arisen as to instinct--some authorities contending that it does
+not exist, (in the old-fashioned sense of the term) while others have
+postulated a number of different instincts--all more or less primitive
+and innate. (McDougall).
+
+Instincts are certainly impulses--to perform some action. They vary
+greatly in complexity, and are by no means always blind or invariable.
+They often resemble thought--and yet it is certain that no actual
+thought is concerned in them. Instincts may be inhibited by habits;
+they are also transitory. They are well adapted to certain ends, and
+an animal or an insect will perform quite complicated actions, under
+entirely novel circumstances. Most of the work done upon instincts,
+until lately, was done upon animals of the lower order; but, more
+recently, much attention has been paid to human instincts, and some
+authorities have contended that human beings have more instincts than
+the lower animals.
+
+Instinct will usually cause the creature in question to perform actions
+compatible with its own safety and self-preservation. Instinct thus
+grades naturally into Emotion, which will next be considered.
+
+
+EMOTION.
+
+We know that practically all emotions give rise to bodily expression.
+Darwin wrote an extensive monograph upon “The Expression of the
+Emotions in Men and Animals.” Fear, anger, hatred, etc., find visible
+expression in the face, and in the actions of the body. Common-sense
+seems to tell us that these bodily expressions are the _results_ of the
+emotion; the James-Lange theory of the emotions says that the bodily
+expressions are the primary factors, the internal emotions following
+after. Thus, we feel sorry because we cry, etc. This theory was for
+long popular among psychologists, but is today questioned in many
+quarters.
+
+Emotions of all sorts are certainly connected in a very intimate
+manner with the body and its internal mechanism. Healthful emotions
+stimulate, while destructive emotions inhibit and destroy. It has been
+claimed that emotions actually cause the secretion of definite chemical
+substances, which can be partially expelled in the breath; varied
+emotions cause different colored precipitates in a given solution, etc.
+(Elmer Gates.) However this may be, there can be no question of the
+beneficial effects of healthful emotions, and the detrimental effects
+of the reverse. It is not so much the effects of the _thought_ upon the
+body, as the _emotion_ aroused by and associated with that thought.
+
+Feeling is the fundamental sensation of all life. Strong feelings have
+been called emotions; these are dependent largely upon the sympathetic
+nervous system, although the glands of internal secretion are also
+important factors. These are stimulated by the emotion, and also give
+expression to it.
+
+Emotions have, of late years, been the subject of much study. It is now
+believed that the various complex emotions are built-up, or compounded
+of simpler ones. An analysis of these complex emotions has resulted in
+their being resolved into their component factors. On the other hand,
+organized systems of emotional tendencies (centered about some object)
+exist in all of us, and these have been called “sentiments.” This idea
+has played a large part in contemporary psychological literature.
+
+Dr. William McDougall, in his “Social Psychology,” has made a very
+ingenious analysis of the various emotions. He shows at considerable
+length how the complex emotions are built-up from the simpler
+ones. Thus:--_gratitude_ is a compound of tender emotion and
+negative self-feeling; _scorn_ is a compound of disgust and anger;
+_fascination_, of horror and wonder; _envy_, of negative self-feeling
+and anger; _reproach_, of anger and tender emotion; _anxiety_, of
+anticipatory pain, tender emotion and anger--against the source of the
+threatened harm; _pity_, of tender emotion and sympathetically-induced
+pain, etc. Goddard (“Psychology of the Normal and Subnormal”) says that
+low orders of intelligence (morons, etc.) experience only relatively
+simple emotions; many of the higher forms are lacking in them, and that
+“only higher intelligences have the highest emotions.” The primary
+emotions thus seem to belong to animals and undeveloped humans; our
+emotions have evolved in their intensity and complexity like everything
+else. That is why refined and “sensitive” people experience the deepest
+and keenest emotions.
+
+
+CONCEPTION.
+
+“The function by which we mark-off, discriminate, draw a line round,
+and identify as a numerically distinct subject of discourse is called
+_conception_.” We may therefore have conceptions of objects, people,
+qualities, abstract ideas, etc. Each conception is unique, separate,
+and distinct for the subject thinking it. No two conceptions can ever
+be quite alike; for no two individuals conceive things in a similar
+manner, and the same individual, conceiving the same thing twice,
+conceives it in a different way. The original conception _plus_, is
+always conceived the second time. For, from the purely physiological
+point of view, the brain has been already modified somewhat by the
+first impression, and the second one reacts upon a modified, and not
+an unmodified, substratum. “History never repeats itself;” and no two
+thoughts, and no two conceptions, can thus ever be _precisely_ alike.
+
+
+PERCEPTION.
+
+These two terms are often confused in the public mind. Psychologically,
+however, they are quite distinct. The consciousness of material objects
+through the senses is called “perception.” We _perceive_ them. On the
+other hand, we _conceive_ an idea. Perceptions depend upon our senses
+and brain-processes; conceptions may be independent of the former. It
+is true, however, that perceptions depend upon the inner workings of
+the mind, as well as upon sense-impressions.
+
+When we perceive a thing, we recognize or “know” that thing. But we
+do not yet think _about_ it, associate it with other things, etc.
+This higher process of the mind has been termed “apperception.” It is
+applied to the process by which the mind goes out to meet the incoming
+perception, and elaborates it by higher processes of association, etc.
+Thus, through the sensation of sight, you perceive an orange. But you
+do not yet say to yourself: “This is a nice, juicy orange; I like
+oranges; it will taste sweet; it will quench my thirst,” etc. These
+associative processes of the mind may be classed, roughly, under the
+process of “apperception.” They represent syntheses and associations.
+
+We are all subject to fallacies of perception. Our senses may deceive
+us; or we may draw wrong deductions from genuine sense impressions.
+There are thus illusions and hallucinations, which resemble one
+another, but which may be distinguished thus: _Illusions_ are caused
+by wrong inferences from actual, objective sense impressions--as, for
+instance when a hat and coat hanging on the wall are mistaken for a man
+standing at the foot of the bed, etc. In the case of a _hallucination_,
+however, there is no physical substratum of reality in the outer
+world; the whole thing is created from within, whence it is projected
+outward,--into space. Some hallucinations of this type seem as “real”
+as a solid object would be.
+
+Hallucinations often result from diseased or irritated sense-organs,
+the sense-centers in the brain, etc. The condition of the blood
+may have much to do with this. Delirium tremens is a good example
+of hallucination of this type. But not all hallucinations are
+abnormal; we all have them at night when we fall asleep and dream.
+We then experience hallucinatory pictures of all sorts of things
+which are not really “there.” There seem to be, also, odd cases of
+“telepathically induced hallucinations,” as I have described in my
+booklet on “Psychical Research,” in this series. In such cases, the
+subject appears to be perfectly normal at the time. There can be no
+doubt, however, that most hallucinations denote some form of mental or
+physical disease--as the hallucinations of the insane, of drug fiends,
+etc., amply testify.
+
+
+THE PERCEPTION OF SPACE.
+
+When a baby first begins to notice objects about it, everything is
+doubtless more or less vague and confused. Gradually, order appears out
+of chaos. Normal adults have a fairly clear idea of the sizes, shapes
+and distances of objects--within certain limits. How are we enabled to
+do this?
+
+An enormous literature exists upon this subject. Only a few essentials
+can be given here. First of all, it is probably true that the general
+feeling of size exists as a definite quality in sensation--of intensity
+of voluminousness. Varied sensations are inwardly compared with one
+another, and, so to say, checked-off. Smaller objects are discriminated
+within the object looked at; the object is usually seen in relation
+to other objects, etc. James holds that “extensity, discernible in
+each and every sensation ... is the original sensation of space,
+out of which all the exact knowledge about space that we afterwards
+come to have is woven by processes of discrimination, association
+and selection.” These later powers are developed as the mind itself
+develops; on the other hand, sensations with a certain degree of innate
+extensity in them are postulated--and are denied by others!
+
+Ouspensky (“Tertium Organum”) asserts that man is the only
+three-dimensional animal; the lower animals are naturally
+two-dimensional, and that what we perceive as the third dimension they
+perceive as movement. They see only flat surfaces. This is, however, a
+much-disputed point, into which we have not time to enter now; it also
+takes us into the realm of animal psychology.
+
+
+PERCEPTION OF TIME.
+
+Our perception (or sense) of time differs considerably at different
+ages, and under different circumstances. When we are bored, tired,
+etc., time seems to move slowly; when we are interested or excited, it
+flits by rapidly, etc. A certain span of time always seems shorter to
+old people than to young ones. A year is an enormous period to a child;
+whereas an old man will often exclaim: “How the years have flown!” Time
+which is busily occupied seems short, but it seems a long period, when
+looked back upon. A waiting period, on the other hand, in which nothing
+is accomplished, seems interminable during its passage; but it seems
+extremely brief, when viewed in retrospect. This is probably due to the
+fact that many actions _seem_ to occupy a long period of time, whereas
+a span in which nothing of importance happens _seems_ to have taken-up
+no time at all.
+
+The shortest period of time which we can appreciate is about 1/500 of
+a second. Exner recognized two electric sparks to be successive when
+the second followed the first at that interval. On the other hand, the
+longest period of time which we can accurately distinguish from longer
+or shorter bits of time, according to Wundt, is 12 seconds. We probably
+have no sense of “empty” time; but of the flow of events _in_ time.
+It has been suggested that the pulse may be a sort of natural clock,
+enabling us to appreciate time as it flows (for instance in sleep),
+but this hardly serves to explain many such cases. The same may be
+said of the idea that some unknown, but constant, feature in the brain
+activities is the source of our perceiving time at all.
+
+When we become unconscious, time is obliterated altogether; the sense
+of time is also seriously impaired under the influence of certain
+drugs (_e. g._, hasheesh), so that a second may appear to consume
+hours, and _vice versa_. It has been proved by experiment that subjects
+under hypnosis, and some natural somnambules, have a remarkable sense
+of time, and can reckon it with uncanny accuracy. Our conscious mind
+is notoriously bad at this sort of thing. The subconscious mind is
+the “ready reckoner,” therefore, which must be added to its other
+accomplishments!
+
+
+ATTENTION.
+
+When we “pay attention” to a thing, the consciousness is narrowed
+down to a point, as it were, and concentrated like the beam of a
+searchlight. The greater the degree of attention, the more this
+narrowing process takes place, until the subject may be lost to all
+save the immediate object of his inward study. Attention may be either
+voluntary or involuntary; we may read a book with deep interest, or
+stand fascinated by some horrible spectacle, from which we are unable
+to avert our eyes. We may pay attention to objects of sense, or to
+ideal or represented objects (intellectual attention). Attention may
+also be connected with some sense (sight, hearing, etc.); or may
+be purely psychical, as in cases of meditation, etc. Attention may
+be stimulated by associating the subject-matter with something of
+interest, or by drawing analogies. A person will always pay attention
+to something that interests him. The practical importance of this law
+should be utilized by all teachers, for the child’s education would
+proceed by leaps and bounds were due advantage taken of these facts.
+
+
+DISCRIMINATION.
+
+The word “discrimination” is popularly used in two senses (1) we speak
+of a man having “good discrimination,” meaning by that a sort of good
+judgment. (2) Discrimination, in the psychological sense, however,
+means the noticing of any part of an object, as distinct from the whole.
+
+All sensations tend to fuse and become a single compound;
+discrimination singles these out, and separates them. Such differences
+may be felt, if they are _really_ different, and different _enough_;
+further, they must fall more or less in succession upon the same organ,
+and not simultaneously. If they do, they are apt to blend hopelessly.
+Especially is this the case if the elements of the impression have
+never been experienced singly before. If we are familiar with a thing,
+we can begin to discriminate the elements going to compose it. It is,
+however, true that only such elements as we are acquainted with, and
+can imagine separately, can be discriminated, within a total sense
+impression. If a thing be associated at one time with one thing and
+at another time with another, this may become a separate “thing” for
+the mind, which singles it out, by an act of discrimination, and places
+it in a position by itself. Such acts of discrimination may be greatly
+improved by practice.
+
+
+ASSOCIATION.
+
+This is the peculiar quality of the mind, by means of which two or
+more ideas or memories are coupled together. Association is thought
+to take place largely in the higher centers in the brain--the frontal
+lobes. Nearly all our higher education consists in association, and our
+mental lives are largely dependent upon it. Genius is said to consist,
+largely, in making associations, and seeing resemblances, which other
+people do not. Upon association memory largely depends.
+
+Association is a very complicated process, which depends largely upon
+the brain. Various anatomical schemes have been devised to explain and
+illustrate association,--which may be found in text books upon the
+subject. Association may be partial or complete. Similarity is one
+of its distinguishing characteristics (and causes). Usually, objects
+which appeal to the same sense are associated one with another; but
+sometimes quite different sense-impressions are associated, in a very
+odd manner. The subject may, e. g., associate a sense of smell with
+a visual impression; or a sense of taste with a definite sound, etc.
+These are the so-called “synæsthesias.” Thus: “_salt_, for instance, is
+described by one observer as dull red, _bitter_ as brownish, _sweet_
+as clear bright red, and _sour_ as green or greenish-blue. To another
+observer the taste of meat seems red or brown, the taste of graham
+bread is rich red in color, while all ice-creams, (except chocolate and
+coffee) taste blue. To still another reporter, the sound of the word
+‘intelligence’ tastes like fresh sliced tomatoes, while the sound of
+the word ‘interest’ tastes like stewed tomatoes....”
+
+These are unusual associations, however, which depend either upon
+some odd nervous connections between the various sense-centers in the
+brain, or upon some purely psychical associations. Most of our normal
+associations deal either with objects or with memories.
+
+
+IMAGINATION.
+
+Nearly all our imaginations are visual in character; great composers
+may imagine the orchestration of the masterpiece they are composing--so
+vividly, at times, that this amounts to an auditory hallucination.
+But most of us are more or less limited to _visual_ imaginings; we
+“build air-castles in Spain,” or imagine ourselves in various scenes or
+situations, which are seen by the “mind’s eye.” The explanation usually
+put forward to explain this is that “sensations, once experienced,
+modify the nervous organism, so that copies of them arise again in the
+mind after the original outward stimulus is gone.” No such mental copy,
+of course, can arise in the mind, of any sensation which has never been
+directly excited from without, on this theory.
+
+This power of “visualization” differs greatly in different individuals;
+some men are good, others bad visualizers. Images of sounds, muscular
+sensations, touch, etc., may also be reconstructed. These again may be
+so vivid as to amount to actual hallucinations.
+
+Imagination consists in the power of the mind to build-up mental
+pictures, and project them into the _future_, just as memory-images are
+projected into the _past_--into our life-experience. Imagination is
+that power of the mind which seems, in one sense, to pierce the veil.
+While such imaginings are, as a rule, merely day-dreams, never coming
+true, it is also a fact that all great works must be thought of or
+imagined, in some sense, before they are executed, or come into being
+on the material plane. Someone must have “imagined” the Pyramids before
+they were built. Rightly used, then, imagination is a very valuable
+asset, which should be cherished and utilized--just as it can become
+destructive, if abused. It had indeed been said that a sense of humor
+and imagination are the two things which distinguish us more than
+anything else from the brutes.
+
+Use your imagination, therefore, only keep it well in leash--like the
+thoroughbred horse which it is!
+
+
+WILL.
+
+The Will is that which seems more intimately a part of our inner Self
+than almost any other portion of our mental being. We feel when we
+actually _will_ a thing that we thereby set some hidden energy in
+motion, which flows outwards, and sets our muscles into action. Or
+we may will to accomplish a certain thing, or to feel or think in a
+certain way. The will seems to be centered in the forehead, just above
+the eyes and nose, and to form a part of the central Self or Ego.
+
+Hence the doctrine of the “freedom of the will.” We _feel_ that we
+are free to will, to perform any given action, or to refrain from
+performing it. “The human will is free.” The contrary doctrine, on
+the other hand, “Determinism,” contends that this is an illusion; we
+are _not_ free; our every action is determined by our previous trains
+of thought,--our education, environment, heredity, etc.,--and that we
+must _necessarily_ choose and will as we do. This is the much-debated
+philosophical question of “Free Will Vs. Determinism,”--which is really
+a metaphysical question, and not a psychological one, and hence cannot
+be discussed at greater length in this place.
+
+We may really will to perform a certain action; or we may merely _wish_
+to do so. This is little more than desire. A wish may exist without
+giving rise to the will to carry it out; the _fiat_ of the will has not
+gone forth. Action only follows this fiat of the will. Wish and desire
+remain in the world of inaction. Hence the truth of the old adage,--“If
+wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” The reason they do not ride is
+that the wish is never translated into action.
+
+Ideas of action may be expressed in action, or they may be
+inhibited--prevented from being actively expressed. There is always
+a tendency on the part of the body thus to carry out any given
+volitional impulse. This is often checked, for our judgment tells
+us that we should not perform the action in question. On the other
+hand, we may force ourselves to perform a given action, from which we
+instinctively shrink.
+
+We may have an impulse to perform a specific action, but we “let
+it go.” Again, we may hold steadily before the mind the idea of
+performing that action, until we actually do so. Now, according to
+many psychologists, this act of voluntary attention is all that the
+will _is_; it is nothing else. “The essential achievement of the will
+... when it is most voluntary, is to attend to the direct object and
+hold it fast before the mind. The doing so _is_ the fiat; and it is a
+mere physiological incident that when the object is thus attended to,
+immediate motor consequences should ensue. Effort of attention is thus
+the essential phenomenon of will....”
+
+There are many of us, however, who cannot accept or believe this. We
+see in the human will something more than this. There is something more
+in will than mere effort of attention. Recent experiments, conducted
+by means of delicate recording instruments, seem to show us that the
+human will is indeed an energy, capable of registering itself, or being
+registered, by suitable apparatus; while the experiments of Dr. Charles
+Russ also appear to prove that the human eye, under the dynamic action
+of the will, can be made to emit a living force, capable of affecting
+delicate instruments. We feel that, when we love, some vital energy
+radiates from the eyes; that the glance of hate is more than a mere
+metaphor. The will and the outward vision (if I may use the term) seem
+to be subtly connected, and experiments such as these seem to prove
+it. And if so, they cast a new and vitally important light upon the
+doctrine of free-will. For our immediate practical purposes, however,
+it may be said that the will seems to send forth a fiat, of a nature
+wholly unknown, following upon which definite actions are performed in
+accordance with that volitional effort.
+
+
+MEMORY.
+
+A sensation, an emotion, an idea, etc., may leave a more or less
+permanent memory which can, perhaps, be recalled years later. Where was
+this memory in the meanwhile? The usual explanation is that a sort of
+groove or trace is cut into certain brain cells,--just as the recording
+needle cuts a groove in the phonograph record, recording at the same
+time the _music_; and that the act of recalling a memory is analogous
+to reproducing the music, by means of a suitable device upon the
+phonograph. The brain is, on this view, “the physical basis of memory.”
+
+One difficulty which at once arises, however, is that, inasmuch as all
+parts of the body are constantly being made-over, and replaced by new
+parts, these brain-cells must also be replaced (within a few weeks,
+months or years) and the record would vanish with them. The usual reply
+to this is that the newly laid-down brain-cell in some way “inherits”
+the memory from the old one, and hence somehow continues to store its
+psycho-physical memories, which are again passed-on when this cell is
+replaced, and so on forever.
+
+Needless to say, such an interpretation of the facts strains our
+credulity. None other, however, has ever been forthcoming. But the
+inherent difficulty of the case has led some philosophers--notably
+Bergson--to defend the idea that the brain is merely a mechanism for
+_reproducing_ memories, and that memory itself resides within some
+spiritual storehouse, where it remains until recalled. The legitimacy
+of such a view, of course, rests upon the possible proof of such a
+super-physical world as that postulated.
+
+Memory depends upon a variety of factors. A healthy brain is essential
+to a good memory; good blood, bathing healthy nerve-cells being here
+essential. Memory also depends upon (1) interest, and (2) association.
+We remember a thing which interests us; it makes an “impression” upon
+us. Also, if we associate a thing with other things, it helps us
+to remember it. An isolated fact is hard to remember; but if it is
+associated with a number of other things which we know, or which also
+interest us, it is more liable to be recalled. Any one of these things
+may then recall the other event, by association, and hence the given
+memory is more readily accessible.
+
+Memory is first of all recorded, then stored, then recalled, and
+finally recognized or “placed,” after it is recalled. Some authors
+say that memory consists in three stages, others in as many as five
+(Hyslop). This is merely a question of the sub-division of the process
+involved.
+
+It has been contended that there is no such thing as a “good” or a
+“bad” memory; it all depends upon the factors above mentioned. Various
+artificial schemes have been devised to improve and perfect the memory;
+and there is no doubt that it is a faculty which can be greatly
+improved by constant practice. In a sense, everything is remembered,
+but it is not vivid enough to be recalled. Such hidden memories can
+often be revived by means of hypnotism, etc. In certain abnormal
+conditions, the memory seems to be keenly stimulated, and events, long
+forgotten, are recalled, which had long before been forgotten by the
+conscious mind. Many apparently “super-normal” phenomena have been
+explained in this manner.
+
+
+REASONING.
+
+One thing which is held to elevate us above the brutes, more than all
+else, is our _reason_. “Man is a rational animal.” Yet how few of us
+reason,--at any rate systematically! When in a crowd, we are carried
+away by the psychology of the crowd; and we are swayed more by our
+feelings and emotions than we are by our reason, as a rule. Yet there
+can be no doubt that pure reason is the highest type of thinking
+possible for the normal man.
+
+Reasoning consists in carrying on a logical and connected train of
+thought, each step of which follows logically from the one preceding
+it. It is dependent upon learning, sagacity and common-sense. The
+essence of reasoning is, of course, _logic_, which is supposed
+to portray the highest type of reason. We think about a thing
+intellectually, when we reason. We arrive at a conclusion by a
+logical train of thought. Each thought is like the link in a chain.
+We may arrive at the conclusion in some other way, by some process
+of “intuition,” or what not, but reasoning constitutes the basis of
+our thinking, and represents the solid rock, upon which most men are
+content to build their intellectual houses. And in order to reason
+well, systematically clear thinking is required.
+
+
+SPEECH.
+
+Normally, we communicate with one another in three ways; by means of
+marks upon paper (writing), by movements (sign language), and by means
+of air vibrations issuing from the vocal chords (speech). The question
+of the origin of speech is a much disputed one, some authorities
+contending that we gradually attached meanings to certain primitive
+sounds; others that we learned to express ourselves in speech in order
+to express our thoughts.
+
+There are certain definite areas in the brain which send out the
+necessary motor currents, rendering speech possible. We have two such
+centers, one in each hemisphere, but we ordinarily use but one of
+them. Right-handed people use the one in the left hemisphere, while
+left-handed persons utilize the one in the right hemisphere. Should
+this active area be injured, the subject becomes _dumb_--though the
+corresponding area in the other hemisphere may be quite intact. Hence
+the importance of teaching children to become “ambidextrous”; _both_
+centers are thereby cultivated, and, if one is injured, the patient can
+still talk. An extended discussion of this entire subject may be found
+in Dr. N. C. MacNamara’s “Human Speech; its Physical Basis.”
+
+
+HABIT.
+
+We all know what is meant by forming habits--either “good” or “bad.”
+It is always easier to do a thing a second time than at first. If
+any specific action is performed a great number of times, it becomes
+practically automatic, so that we do not have to think about it at
+all. Every step in walking is conscious at first; every action in
+buttoning a button or tying a tie; in time these actions become more
+or less unconscious. A habit, once formed, is hard to break, but it is
+relatively easy to break in the early stages of its formation.
+
+Man has been defined as “a bundle of habits.” We hardly realize,
+perhaps, the extent to which habit governs us--not only in our physical
+actions, but also in our trends and attitudes of thought. “Habit second
+Nature?” exclaimed the Duke of Wellington; “habit is ten times nature!”
+
+There is much truth in this assertion. When we form a new habit, we
+cut a new groove in the brain, so to speak, and nervous currents find
+it much easier to travel over this beaten path, rather than to cut a
+new one. Every time that path is used, it becomes relatively easier
+and easier for the nervous current to pass over it; and the result is
+that, whenever a nervous current passes in its immediate vicinity, it
+tends to shoot along that path, before it can be prevented from doing
+so. The action in question is then performed. Of course, this is only
+a rough simile, but something of the sort takes place, and it enables
+us to visualize how habits are formed, from the psycho-physiological
+point-of-view.
+
+Prof. William James, in his “Psychology,” has laid down certain maxims,
+which are very helpful, and may be applied in daily life to our own
+advantage. These maxims, in brief, are:
+
+(1) _Make your nervous system your ally instead of your enemy._ This
+is to fund and capitalize our acquisitions, and live at ease upon the
+interest of the fund. For this we must make automatic and habitual, as
+early as possible, as many useful actions as we can, and guard against
+the growing into ways that are likely to be disadvantageous to us,
+as we should guard against the plague. We should, then, take care to
+launch ourselves with as strong and decided an initiative as possible
+upon any new venture. This will tend to cut a deep initial groove, so
+to say.
+
+(2) _Never suffer an exception to occur till the new habit is securely
+rooted in your life._ Each lapse is like the letting fall of a ball of
+string which one is carefully winding-up; a single slip will undo more
+than a great many turns will wind up again. _Continuity_ of training is
+the great means of making the nervous system act infallibly right.
+
+(3) _Seize the very first possible opportunity to act on every
+resolution you make_, and on every emotional prompting you may
+experience in the direction of the habits you aspire to gain. It is not
+in the moment of their forming, but in the moment of their producing
+_motor effects_, that resolves and aspirations communicate the new
+“set” to the brain.
+
+Much dispute has arisen as to the best way to break a bad
+habit--whether to abolish it at once, or to taper it off by
+degrees--thus avoiding “shock.” The consensus of opinion seems to be
+that it is far better to break off at once, _providing one can stand
+it_. Similarly, the abrupt acquisition of a new habit is best, _if_
+there is a real possibility of carrying it out. If you set yourself an
+impossible task, and fail to carry it out, this will leave you weaker
+than before. But this is not necessary; slight tasks will serve just as
+useful purposes as more difficult ones in the formation of new habits.
+And the ability to perform unpleasant tasks is the test of character!
+“The faculty must be kept alive by a little gratuitous exercise every
+day.”
+
+According to the habits we form--lazy or industrious, bad or good--our
+life, success, happiness, destiny depend. An object-lesson of some
+sort--a book, a play, a living example--will perhaps modify and color
+our whole lives. I cannot do better than to conclude this chapter by
+a quotation from William James, which I personally read when about
+nineteen years of age, and which served to influence the whole course
+of my life. It may, perhaps, have the same effect upon others, and it
+is with the hope that it will, that I call attention to it here. James
+says:
+
+“Let no youth have any anxiety about the upshot of his education,
+whatever the line of it may be. If he keep faithfully busy each hour
+of the working day, he may safely leave the final result to itself. He
+can with perfect certainty count on waking up, some fine morning, to
+find himself one of the competent ones of his generation, in whatever
+pursuit he may have singled out. Silently, between all the details of
+his business, the _power of judging_ in that class of matter will have
+built itself up within him as a possession that will never pass away.
+Young people should know this truth in advance. The ignorance of it has
+probably engendered more discouragement and faint-heartedness in youths
+embarking on arduous careers than all other causes put together.”
+
+
+THE STRUCTURE OF THE MIND.
+
+Great changes in our views as to the nature or structure of the mind
+have taken place within the past few years. The older psychology held
+that the mind was a _unit_; that it was a separate thing or entity,
+a sort of “sphere”--which, if it could ever be caught, would reveal
+all the secrets of True Being! Accordingly, they tried to catch this
+sphere-of-being, by inward reflection or “introspection.” But it
+was never caught! There are many reasons why this should be so, the
+chief reason being that a subject cannot be an object also; it is as
+impossible for a thought to catch itself as it would be to turn a
+hollow rubber ball inside out, without tearing the cover.[1] But the
+newer psychology studies the mind objectively, from the outside--by
+means of recording instruments, and does not depend upon introspection
+for its results. Further, the very conception of the nature of the
+“self,” is different; it is not now considered an entity, as of old;
+but rather a compound thing, a complex, composed of a variety of
+elements. Instead of being considered a single gossamer thread, it is
+now thought to be rather a rope, composed of innumerable, interwoven
+elements--and these, in turn, of still finer threads, until the
+sub-division seems endless. The mind, in other words, is thought to
+be compounded of innumerable separate elements; but held together, or
+compounded into one, by the normal action of the will, of attention,
+and the grip upon the personality of the true Self. When this will is
+weakened, when the attention is constantly slackened, when the mind
+wanders, this strand of rope separates and unravels. The “threads”
+branch out in various directions, no longer in control of the central
+governing will; the Self has become _dissociated_ or split-up into
+various minor Selves--all but parts of the real total Self; yet
+separate and distinct, nevertheless. And if _enough_ of these threads
+become joined together, or interwoven, one with another, it can easily
+be imagined that this second strand of rope might become a formidable
+opponent to the original strand; it might become so large and strong,
+in fact, by the constant addition of new threads, and the dissociation
+of these from the first, true strand, that it would assume a _more_
+important role, and become stronger, and finally even control the
+whole. What was originally but a single, fine, divergent thread has
+become, in course of time, a successful rival to the original strand of
+rope.
+
+Now let us apply this analogy--which is, of course, _only_ a rough
+analogy--which seeks to portray briefly, in visual terms, something
+that seems to happen invisibly and internally in the mental life. The
+mind as a whole represents the rope; its elements or component parts
+are the threads; and, under certain abnormal conditions, these can be
+torn away from the original Self--like little rivulets, branching off
+from the main stream of consciousness, forming independent selves.
+This is an abnormal condition; a splitting of the mind, a dissociation
+of consciousness. We here enter, therefore, the domain of _Abnormal
+Psychology_. In such cases, we have instances of so-called “double
+consciousness,” of “alternating personality;” or, if there are three or
+more splits or cleavages, of “multiple personality.”[2]
+
+So long as this split-off portion remains a mass of sporadic thoughts,
+not much damage has been done; but when they become abnormally linked
+or associated together, forming groups, then the abnormal conditions
+have begun in earnest. These masses of subconscious experiences are
+called “complexes,” and give rise to all sorts of trouble. It must
+not be thought that this complex formation is always harmful; on the
+contrary, this very process, when normally conducted, is the basis of
+our educational processes. But when they are thus conglomerated and
+consolidated outside the conscious mind, and function automatically, by
+themselves, then they have become dangerous to the mental stability.
+Their pressure and influence may be felt in the conscious life--in
+fantastic imaginations, in fears, phobias and obsessions, in morbid
+dreams, in morbid emotional and moral reactions throughout the entire
+psycho-physical life. It is these automatic, self-acting complexes
+which originate many of the disorders of the mind.
+
+This theory of the dissociation of consciousness has enabled us to
+explain many puzzling facts, hitherto inexplicable. Thus _hysteria_,
+with its multiform symptoms, and its internal contradictions, has long
+been the stumbling-block of medicine. Now it is no longer thought to be
+a morbid physical state (dependent usually upon sexual disturbances),
+but it is regarded rather as an indication of the splitting of the
+mind, a dissociation which embraces all the motor, physical and
+psychical activities. On this theory, hysteria is readily explained,
+and all its multiplex symptoms understood. In treating it, the self is
+unified, abnormal suggestibility is removed, and the patient is cured!
+
+_Psychaesthenia_, again, with its obsessions and fears, may be
+explained in the same manner, and its cure rests upon the same
+principles. The “attacks” cease so soon as the psychical synthesis is
+effected and the morbid self-consciousness removed.
+
+_Neurasthenia_, long regarded as a pathological state, due to
+auto-intoxication and similar causes, is now thought to be due
+chiefly to dissociation, caused by excessive fatigue--one of the
+known contributory causes of this condition. _Psycho-epilepsy_--a
+sort of fictitious imitation of the real disease--is due to precisely
+similar causes, and may be cured in a similar manner. Hypnotism,
+Psycho-analysis and general psychotherapy may be employed in such cases.
+
+
+ABSTRACT THOUGHT.
+
+Two schools of philosophers--the “nominalists” and the
+“conceptualists”--for long waged a wordy war as to whether or not the
+mind could frame abstract or universal ideas. As a matter of fact, it
+was ideas of universal or abstract objects that was meant. These ideas
+dealt largely with the sense of _meaning_, the inner significance
+of the thing contemplated. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of
+mind--how such a thing as abstract meaning can exist at all, and how
+brain-changes can in any way account for it. McDougall, as we know, is
+inclined to question that they do so at all. Meaning is a thing most
+difficult to account for on a purely materialistic basis. Abstract
+thinking is supposed to be one of the highest types of thinking
+possible for us; it is the most impersonal form of thought, and hence,
+in a sense, the highest. Much has been written upon this topic in
+Oriental literature. This question comes up for discussion, naturally,
+in the Section devoted to the stream of thought, and the consciousness
+of self; and further discussion of it will be found in that place.
+
+
+THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF.
+
+We now approach the heart of our Problem; the central core of Being!
+The consciousness of self is ingrained in every one of us; we feel
+our own inner being, our true self, our personal identity, our
+individuality, as something unique and exclusive. What is this Self?
+What are thoughts, and who is the Thinker that thinks them? Are
+the two identical, or are the thoughts expressions of the flow of
+consciousness? What is the true Self--of what is it composed--and what
+relation has it to the other functions and processes of the mind which
+go on, and which are in some mysterious way related to it? Only a brief
+answer to these questions can be attempted in this Chapter; for many
+lengthy volumes have been written upon this question alone.
+
+Our stream of consciousness is _continuous_ (except during sleep);
+states of mind tend to succeed each other. Let us grant this to begin
+with. The mind seems to be _selective_ in its action, it is changing
+within itself, as time passes; no two states of consciousness are ever
+precisely alike. Further, “all consciousness tends to personal form”--a
+very important fact indeed. A flow of more or less continuous thought
+goes on; these thoughts follow one another logically in sequence. (In
+insane patients, of course, they are not logical. I speak here merely
+of the normal mind. Also, it must be emphasized that nothing in this
+Chapter touches upon the subconscious mind, unless special mention is
+made of that fact.) Each thought seems to be personal to the thinker;
+it is not merely thought in itself. It is _my_ thought. This flow of
+thought is in constant change; it flows as life itself flows; on the
+other hand, thought is sensibly continuous! The mental life might here
+be compared to a river, which eddies and swirls, as it flows, but is
+the same water, nevertheless.
+
+One of the objects of thinking is to reach certain conclusions. We
+might compare thought to a bird in flight; its object is to perch
+upon yon branch; its flight is a necessary transitive stage _to_
+the branch. The chain of intermediate thought corresponds, on our
+analogy, to the bird’s flight. This flight is very different, in the
+case of different people; with some, it is straight and rapid; with
+others, it is tortuous and lengthy. That is why different people think
+differently. About each thought is a sort of halo of relations, dimming
+off, as it recedes, into other things. This is the so-called “fringe of
+consciousness.” All thought is related to other thought, more or less
+directly. Knowledge _about_ a thing is knowledge of its _relations_.
+
+When I am thinking, I am aware of my _personal existence_; at the same
+time _I_ am aware. There thus seems to be a double self within the
+Self--the Self as known, and the Self as knower. James calls the former
+the “ME” and the latter the “I.” Let us consider each of these in turn.
+
+_The Me._--This comprises all that a man can call _his_; the most
+important of these spiritual possessions are (1) the material me; (2)
+the social me; and (3) the spiritual me.
+
+The _Material Me_ consists in (a) his body, and (b) his possessions.
+_The Social Me_ is the side he shows to his friends and acquaintances;
+this varies greatly in differing environments, so that it has been said
+that “a man has as many social selves as there are individuals who
+recognize him.” His name, fame, reputation, success, etc., are classed
+as parts of this Me. _The Spiritual Me_ includes passing states of
+consciousness; it is that part of us which “goes out” to meet other
+thoughts. Feelings and emotions affect this Me; self-appreciation,
+self-satisfaction (or the reverse), self-complacency, etc., vitally
+affect this Me. Self-seeking and self-preservation are a part of it.
+These various Selves clash and conflict, to a certain extent, among
+themselves; they do not all want the same thing. “Happiness” probably
+consists largely in having all these Selves working together in
+harmony, to the same end.
+
+_The I._--This was called the “pure ego” by the older psychologists. It
+seems to be the background of the personality--the string upon which
+the pearls of thought are strung. Is there a real “string,” or are the
+pearls merely separate, succeeding one another, as if they were thus
+strung?
+
+That is a difficult question. Passing thought appears to be a unity;
+yet it consists of a number of different elements; there is no “fusing”
+of thought. Ideas, thoughts, in this unlike material threads, cannot be
+woven together upon nothing; there must be some background other than
+themselves. The human _Soul_ has been postulated as this “permanent
+background,” uniting the whole, and withstanding the shock of death.
+If true, this would serve to explain the facts, and at the same time
+give us hope for survival. But whether or not such a soul exists at all
+is a matter of controversy! In the absence of its proof, we must, says
+Science--reject it. Consequently, we have today a “psychology without a
+soul.” Attempts have been made to explain the facts without resorting
+to it.
+
+The usual argument is somewhat as follows: There seem to be single,
+successive pulses in the stream of thought, constituting the Ego. These
+vary and change; they succeed one another. May not consciousness, then,
+consist merely _in_ such successive states of consciousness; may it not
+in truth be composed of them--just as a succession of pearls may exist
+without a unifying string? Each thought, on this hypothesis, in some
+way gives birth to the next, which also inherits its content; in other
+words, _the thoughts themselves are the thinkers_. Were this true,
+we should have no “abiding entity,” but merely a successive series of
+thoughts, constituting the stream of consciousness; this stream in turn
+composing the true Self. Which of these views is the correct one can
+only be proved by showing that survival in some form exists; and this
+can only be accomplished by Psychical Research! (See my little book
+upon that subject, in the present series.)
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+(Mutations, multiplications, etc., of the Self, have been touched upon
+in the Section devoted to Abnormal Psychology; Insanity in its own
+section; mediumships, possessions, etc., in the book just mentioned.)
+
+
+THE DUCTLESS GLANDS, AND PERSONALITY.
+
+Within the past few years, a new school has arisen, which contends that
+the ductless glands in the body (or rather their secretions) affect
+personality to a very great extent, and that, in fact, personality is
+largely dependent upon them for its peculiarities and general make-up.
+A good example of such teaching is to be found in Dr. Louis Berman’s
+book, “The Glands Regulating Personality.” Here, _e. g._, we read:
+
+“Acuteness of perception, memory, logical thought, imagination,
+conception, emotional expression or inhibition, and the entire content
+of consciousness are influenced by the internal secretions.... All
+the different _nuances_ of personality are expressions of a peculiar
+relationship, transitory or permanent, between the endocrines and
+the viscera and muscles. Conversely, behavior shows what a person
+actually _is_ chemically; that is, what endocrine and vegetative
+factors predominate in his make-up. The constructive imagination, one
+of the few truly precious gifts of a personality, is probably the
+expression of a certain balanced activity of the ante-pituitary and the
+post-pituitary (glands).... It is possible to speak of thyroid moods,
+adrenal moods, ante-pituitary or post-pituitary moods, gonadal moods.
+Each of these is the echo in the mind of cells stimulated or depressed,
+by concentration or dilution in the blood of particular internal
+secretions....”
+
+Whether or not such arguments will “hold water” must be proved by
+further investigation. The _pros_ and _cons_ cannot be argued in this
+place. It may be said, however, that such extreme views as those
+outlined above are not yet generally accepted, either by the medical
+profession or by psychologists, and it seems an extreme statement of a
+partial truth. The mental life is certainly influenced by the secretion
+of the internal glands, but to what extent it is fundamentally altered
+by them is still _sub judice_.
+
+
+MOTIVES.
+
+Why do we act as we do, under certain circumstances? There is usually
+some “motive” at work, prompting our action. Human motives find their
+source in the subconscious mind of man; here they take root, and their
+products alone are seen by us--mostly in varied actions. Dr. James J.
+Jackson has written an interesting volume on “Human Motives,” in which
+he distinguishes two sorts of motives--motives of constructiveness
+and motives of adaptation. These are, of course, biological in
+origin. Usually, we speak of “good” and “bad” motives. They all arise
+from a complex of sentiments, which shape the form and tenor of the
+subconscious thought--which, in turn, is symbolically expressed in
+thought and action. Without discussing this question at greater length,
+it may be said that all our motives originate within the subconscious
+mind--which thus constitutes the spring of our thoughts and actions.
+
+
+CONSCIENCE.
+
+Conscience was for long thought to be the “voice of God” speaking to
+the spiritual ear of man. Nowadays, a more matter-of-fact solution has
+been sought, and, to a certain extent, found. Modern psychological
+investigations have deprived conscience of its supernatural origin.
+
+Until these newer researches were undertaken, however, any clear
+understanding as to the nature of conscience was impossible. (See,
+_e. g._ George W. Reid’s “Conscience,” and Hastings Rashdall’s
+“Is Conscience an Emotion?”) With a clearer understanding of the
+subconscious mind, came greater light. We now believe that conscience
+is, very largely, the inhibitory action of a portion of the
+subconscious mind, which inhibition is exercised whenever the thoughts
+or the actions of the individual run counter to those generally
+accepted by the community in which he dwells, or by his own individual
+up-bringing, or both. It is a sort of Censor; but it is an acquired
+thing, which has come into being, and evolved, like everything else.
+What the conscience of one man would prevent him from doing, another
+will do without the slightest qualms. Conscience is not, therefore,
+a universal principle, judging good and bad, alike in all men. It
+is a type of repression, exercised upon us from within. Early moral
+precepts, etc., have much to do with its formation. Here, then, we find
+the psychological basis for the existence of conscience, which is more
+or less active in all of us, according to our heredity, environment,
+education, etc. It is a normal attribute of the inner man.
+
+
+INTUITION.
+
+This is the term loosely applied to certain inner feelings, giving rise
+to a form of conviction as to the truth and reality (or the reverse)
+of something then present in the mind. Intuitions are popularly
+supposed to be right, and women are said to experience them far more
+often than men! No statistical evidence is available, so far as I
+know, upon either of these questions; indeed, it may be said that
+the whole subject has been grossly neglected, from the psychological
+point-of-view.
+
+Intuitions probably present themselves to the mind as the result of
+subconscious mentation. A hidden and unknown process has been going
+on within the mind, the result or product of which finally emerges in
+vague form into consciousness. Usually it takes the form of a more or
+less vague feeling. Miss Goodrich-Freer, who had experienced many such
+intuitions, attempted to analyze some of them, from introspection, and
+contributed a valuable Chapter entitled “How it Came into my Head; the
+Machinery of Intuitions,” in her book, “Essays in Psychical Research.”
+Her conclusion is approximately that mentioned above. Mr. Walter N.
+Weston has also written a book entitled “Intuition,” in which, however,
+little of value can be found.
+
+
+INSPIRATION.
+
+This term is generally employed to signify “divine” inspiration--ideas
+which are implanted directly into the human mind by some external
+Divinity. Such a conception, needless to say, is not in accord with
+modern thought. Throughout the ages, inspirational addresses have been
+heralded as evidence of the supernatural. The Pythoness at Delphi
+inhaled the mystic vapor, rising from a cleft in the rock, and gave
+forth her Oracular utterances. (See Dempsey: “The Delphic Oracle”; H.
+N. Bate, “The Sibylline Oracles.”) Even in our own day, “mediums” give
+similar inspirational addresses, at various spiritualistic centers.
+
+It is not necessary, however, to consider such utterances divine, or
+supernatural, for the vast majority of them may be interpreted in
+terms of psychology, with relative ease. They are the products of the
+subconscious mind of man. George N. Raymond has written an interesting
+book, entitled “The Psychology of Inspiration,” to which the reader
+may be referred to further _data_ upon this subject. While it is
+somewhat religious in tone, it has some good material in it. Like
+Intuition, this subject has been much neglected by academic psychology,
+and there is much need for a careful study of its various problems.
+
+
+GENIUS.
+
+Genius is a term hard to define, though we all have a more or less
+clear idea as to what is meant by a genius. He is a man who stands
+apart from his fellows, head-and-shoulders above them, mentally or
+artistically. But what is it that thus causes him to rise above
+others? Is it vision? Is it originality? clever anticipation? breadth?
+constructiveness? concentration? patience? common-sense? Doubtless
+genius is all this, but it is also more! A genius can perform feats
+which another man can not, try as he will; and more than that, he
+performs them without effort or without training, very often! A certain
+type of genius amounts to what we term a “prodigy,” and then we have
+cases of musical, mathematical or artistic genius. These gifts are
+often exhibited very early in life, for no apparent reason; they last
+for a few years, and then disappear. Few youthful prodigies retain
+their gifts into adult life. Often, their possessor is not even
+normally gifted with reason and common-sense in other directions. Such
+cases as these are unusually difficult to account for. Theosophists are
+apt to turn to the doctrine of “reincarnation” for an explanation; but
+we must endeavor to seek its explanation upon more naturalistic lines.
+
+Ostwald has contended that there are two main types of genius; the
+one which is emotional, erratic, temperamental, artistic, etc. This
+type acquires its genius without “elbow grease.” The other is the
+intellectual type, and hard work is essential for the creation of
+genius of this type.
+
+Nordau, Lombroso, and others, have endeavored to prove that genius
+is closely allied to insanity. In a sense, this is true; but so are
+dreams, and yet perfectly normal and healthy people dream. Because
+certain marks of _resemblance_ may be found, this does not prove
+_identity_, by any means! A yellow ball may resemble an orange; but it
+is not identical with it--certainly not in its most essential part--its
+interior, and its utility.
+
+Genius is probably hereditary, to a certain extent. Ribot has gathered
+together a mass of data, in this connection, which he has published
+in his work on “Heredity.” An interesting study of this and allied
+questions may also be found in N. K. Royse’s book on “Genius.”
+
+Frederic Myers has advanced the idea that genius represents an “uprush
+from the subliminal consciousness” (subconsciousness) of ideas matured
+below the threshold. These ideas burst upon the surface, much as
+bubbles might be said to break upon the surface of water. When the
+stratum of the mind from which these ideas originate is _diseased_, we
+have insanity; when, on the other hand, it is _healthy_, we find the
+products of genius. Some such theory as this is doubtless true; but
+the study of genius, from the scientific point-of-view, is yet in its
+infancy, and the final solution of its mystery has yet to be found.
+
+
+INSANITY.
+
+Until the present generation, the word Insanity was popularly thought
+to mean either imbecility on the one hand, or a raving maniac on
+the other. We now know that this idea is quite untrue; insanity is
+a disease of the mind, just as small-pox is a disease of the body.
+Moreover, we speak of insanities, and not insanity; for there are many
+varieties--all shading-off one into another. A physician who deals
+with such cases is called an “alienist”; and the terms psychiatry,
+psycho-pathology, abnormal psychology, etc., are employed to designate
+various branches of the study of the diseased mind.
+
+Certain types of insanity are, of course, due to actual brain disease.
+A degeneration of the physical substance of the brain may have taken
+place. In other cases, however, no such gross degeneration can be
+traced, and we must assume microscopic alterations, or blood changes,
+or nerves improperly functioning, or purely physical changes and
+dissociations, as explained above. There has grown-up an extensive
+literature on insanity, within the past few years. A good primary book
+of this character is Dr. Bernard Hart’s “Psychology of Insanity.” See
+also Dr. Charles Mercier’s “Sanity and Insanity.”
+
+
+INTELLIGENCE-LEVELS.
+
+The tests conducted upon the male adult population of the United
+States, during the Great War, revealed the astonishing fact that the
+average mental “age” was approximately twelve years; that is to say,
+the average adult possesses an intelligence of a boy at that age.
+The body may have grown, but the mind has not! Of course, many were
+above that level; but many fell below, and the above represented the
+_average_. In many other countries, the average would certainly have
+been far lower.
+
+The majority, therefore, do not possess normal adult minds; there
+has been an arrested development. A scale of mental development was
+accordingly constructed, and individuals were placed somewhere in that
+scale. The human mind may be anything, from a genius to an idiot.
+In this scale, there were many “defectives.” Those individuals who
+possessed a mentality of from eight to twelve years, were classed as
+“morons”; those who ranged from three to seven years, “imbeciles”; and
+those of two, and under, “idiots.”
+
+The mental-age or intelligence-level of any person may be ascertained
+by special tests, devised for the purpose. These tests were originated
+by the psychologist Binet, but Terman and others have greatly extended
+and amplified the original methods. Such tests have now been conducted
+extensively, and the results show us that surprisingly low levels of
+intelligence are the rule, and not the rare exception. The importance
+of an extensive educational campaign is therefore manifest; and the
+Editor of this series, Mr. Haldeman-Julius, is carrying on one of the
+most important campaigns in the world today--by spreading general
+culture and education. For, by this means alone, and by suitable
+eugenic measures, can the human race be elevated and improved, with
+each succeeding generation.
+
+
+THE PRACTICAL USE OF THE MIND.
+
+There is an old saying that a man may be worth only five dollars a day
+from his eyes down, but he may be worth a million dollars a year from
+his eyes up. That is to say, man’s value, both to himself and to the
+community, lies in his _brain_, and the use he makes of it. Manual
+labor is not well paid, proportionately, to creative brain work, so
+that it is to our advantage to develop and utilize our brains to the
+best possible advantage.
+
+Cultivation of the mind will give us greater powers of concentration;
+improved memory; stronger will; more poise; soul judgment; greater
+wisdom; increased value. But mere book learning will not do this. We
+must learn how to apply the mind in a practical way, to the problems of
+daily life, and utilize the powers within ourselves. Curiously enough,
+there is no text-book of this character in use in any school or college
+in the world; but the necessity of such a practical work is obvious.
+Boys and girls emerge from College without the slightest idea as to
+how to apply their minds in any practical manner; their theoretical
+knowledge is of but slight advantage to them. A few practical hints of
+this character should, therefore, prove useful. I select the following
+passages from Christian D. Larson’s excellent little book, “Your
+Forces: and How to Use Them.” He says:
+
+“To make thinking scientific, there are three leading essentials to be
+observed. The _first_ is to cultivate constructive mental attitudes,
+and all mental attitudes are constructive when mind, thought, feeling,
+desire and will constantly face the greater and the better. A positive
+and determined optimism has the same effect, and the same is true of
+the practice of keeping the mental eye single on the highest goal in
+view. To make every mental attitude constructive, the mind must never
+look down, and mental depression must be avoided completely....
+
+“The _second_ essential is constructive mental imagery. Use the
+imagination to picture only what is good, what is beautiful, what is
+beneficial, what is ideal, and what you wish to realize. Mentally see
+yourself receiving what you deeply desire to receive. What you imagine,
+you will think, and what you think, you will become....
+
+“The _third_ essential is constructive mental action. Every action of
+the mind should have something desirable in view and should have a
+definite, positive aim.... When the average man thinks of the future,
+he usually pictures a variety of conflicting events and conditions. He
+has nothing definite in mind. There is no actual leadership therefore
+in the mind, and nothing of great worth can be accomplished....
+
+“Those people who fail, and who continue to fail all along the line,
+fail because the power of their minds is either in a habitual negative
+state, or is always misdirected. If the power of mind is not working
+positively and constructively, for a certain goal, you are not going
+to succeed. If your mind is not positive, it is negative, and negative
+minds float with the stream. We must remember that we are in the midst
+of all kinds of circumstances, some of which are for us and some of
+which are against us, and we will either have to make our own way or
+drift, and if we drift we go wherever the stream goes. But most of the
+streams of human life are found to flow in the world of the ordinary
+and the inferior. Therefore, if you drift, you will drift with the
+inferior, and your goal will be failure.”
+
+In this connection, it is well to remember that negative people and
+non-constructive minds never attract that which is helpful in their
+circumstances. The reason why so many people fail is due to the fact
+that they do not fully and constructively apply the forces and powers
+they possess, and the reason so many succeed only to a slight degree is
+found in the fact that only a small fraction of their power is applied
+properly. The positive and constructive use of the power of mind,
+with a definite goal in view, will invariably result in advancement,
+attainment and achievement; but if we wish to use that power in its
+full capacity, the action of the mind must be _deep_. We must not
+merely think from the surface of the mind; ideas and aspirations
+must come from the deep within. Such ideals and thoughts only come,
+as a rule, after a certain period of quiet and meditation. Hence
+the necessity of being quite alone for a certain time each day--and
+utilizing that time in actual reflection, and not merely in idling the
+time away!
+
+We have now learned something of the general functions and powers of
+the mind; how it works, its mechanisms and “faculties.” Having this
+ground-work, the next thing to do is to apply this knowledge in our
+daily life, and this can be done by following out suggestions such as
+those given above--provided the aspiration and the will be present,
+to drive us onward to achievement and success. The mind of man is
+assuredly his greatest possession; we must first understand it; then
+use it! Theoretical and applied Psychology enable us to do this.
+
+
+MIND AND BRAIN.
+
+The relationship between brain and mind is one of the most puzzling
+questions in the whole field of scientific and philosophic thought. For
+every thought we think, there is a corresponding brain-change; that we
+know. The problem is: What is the nature of this connection, and how
+can a thought (an immaterial thing, apparently) be connected in any
+actual sense with a brain change (which is certainly a material thing?)
+I have discussed this point at considerable length in my little book
+on “Life,” in the present series, and have therein stated the various
+theories so far propounded. The interested reader may refer to such
+books as McDougall’s “Body and Mind,” Binet’s “The Mind and the Brain,”
+Bain’s “Mind and Body,” Calderwood’s “The Relation of Mind and Brain,”
+and C. A. Strong’s “Why the Mind has a Body,” for further and detailed
+discussion upon this subject.
+
+
+PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY.
+
+Inasmuch as psychology deals with the mind, the spirit, the soul,
+(provided there be such a thing), and with purely imponderable and
+immaterial things generally, it is only natural that psychology
+and philosophy should be closely related. Many of the problems of
+metaphysics, as a matter of fact, deal with semi-psychological
+problems; among which may be mentioned the relation of brain and mind,
+free-will, the science of perceiving the reality of the outer world
+(epistemology), etc. How an external object and the “idea” of that
+object can ever be in any way “related” to one another, and how the
+mind can see a definite “sameness” or similarity between the two is,
+in fact, an extraordinary phenomenon. The idea of a beefsteak and the
+beefsteak itself are, indeed, as dissimilar as possible; and yet the
+two somehow correspond! This relationship is a remarkable fact, and
+awaits a full solution.
+
+Again, every night when we fall asleep, we lose our individuality,
+in a sense; yet we are sure of waking up the next morning the same
+“person” who went to sleep--with its memories, thoughts, ideas,
+emotions, etc., practically unchanged. How do we know that we shall
+do so? What guarantee have we that we shall wake up the same person
+that went to sleep and not some one else? As a matter of fact, this
+_does_ sometimes happen, in cases of alternating personality; but such
+cases are exceptional, and the rule holds good. Yet consciousness is
+constantly changing. We are not the same person that we were five, ten,
+twenty years ago; we do not consider ourselves morally responsible, as
+it were, for acts committed by ourselves, when children, any more than
+if they had been committed by some one else. Nevertheless, underneath
+all these changes and modifications, there seems to flow a stream of
+“selfness,” or uniformity, binding the whole together, and we recognize
+that Self as Ourself--behind and beyond all. What is the innermost
+nature of that Self? What is its origin, its destiny? These are
+questions which only the Science of the future can decide!
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] It can be shown, theoretically, that this is possible in the
+“fourth dimension,” but not in the third. This illustrates the
+difference between theory and practice--a point it might be well for
+Christian Scientists to keep in mind!
+
+[2] Although this theory of the “composite” nature of mind is now
+generally held, Mr. Myers has contended that the Self must have
+some _fundamental_ unity--to enable it to withstand the shock of
+death--provided it does so.
+
+
+
+
+                          TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
+
+ Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
+
+ Perceived typographical errors have been silently corrected.
+
+ Footnotes have been moved to the end of the text.
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78996 ***